SteveR: initial revision

2020-11-16T02:07:44Z

initial revision

New page

Workshop hosted by the Massachusetts Citizen Planner Training
Collaborative.

Ken Buckland gives the presentation. He wrote a design review
handbook for agencies that subsidize affordable housing. He's
assisted by Jeff Owen of the North Middlesex Council of Government.

Design review can be used to improve the quality of development,
improve the public realm, and ensure that the character of districts
is maintained. Design review addresses things like the architectural
features of buildings, material choices, colors, roof style, building
height, and the symmetry and style of windows and doors.

The design review process should offer feedback and observations.
Having a good relationship with developers will help the process.
It's also important for reviewers and developers to have a common
vocabulary. An architectural dictionary can be helpful.

Design review can be used for a wide range of objectives including
historic preservation, encouraging specific building styles, and
improving urban amenities and form. Historic preservation is probably
the most common form of design review. The US secretary of the
interior publishes guidelines and standards for historic preservation.

Design review takes place within the envelope allowed by zoning.

Some review processes focus on roofs. This includes roof pitch, the
structure of gables (i.e., the "hats" on the buildings), and the
overall shape of the roofline.

Design review does not consider a building's use.

Design review can encourage consistency. For example, ensuring the
presence of common architectural features, facade elements, materials,
the street wall, types and position of lighting, and the pedestrian
scale. It can also encourage variation between buildings.

Design review takes place within the context of a district. Creation
of districts is one of the first steps in establishing a design review
process.

Landmark preservation is another form of design review. The landmark
helps define the context of the district. New buildings should fit
into that context, and shouldn't detract from the landmark.

Design review can regulate access to parking or waterfront areas.

Urban amenities are often used in exchange for bonuses and incentives.
These can include plaques, civic spaces, pedestrian amenities,
streetscape improvements, and pocket parks.

Design review can focus on excessive differences or similarities. The
presenter talks about a community where every residential building has
a distinct architectural style. The substantial differences are a
theme.

The next part of the presentation focuses on the legal basis for
design review. In the early 1800s, aesthetics were viewed as a matter
of "luxury and waste". Courts sympathized with some regulations,
but generally wanted them tied to public safety, health, and welfare.
In the late 1800s, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled a
Newton ordinance invalid because it required homes to be "handsome".

Planning and zoning advanced as a practice in the 1920s. The
Massachusetts house considered a bill to "beautify" and
"harmonize" development. The SJC said that aesthetics were
secondary to public health and welfare. The court felt that property
owners should not be forced to give up their rights for the pursuit of
aesthetic goals.

Amber v Euclid was a supreme court case that found zoning to be a
valid use of police powers. It asserted those powers should be used
toward furthering the public welfare.

Berman vs. Parker was a supreme court case from 1956. It dealt with
using eminent domain to seize blighted properties, and compensate the
land owners.

In later years, the US supreme court accepted aesthetics as a reason
to undertake urban renewal projects. Over time, aesthetic standards
became accepted, provided that such standards were clear and
reasonable.

Architecture is like speech. It can only be regulated in a
content-neutral manner.

Identifying districts is a key consideration when developing a design
review process. While the goal is to establish geographic boundaries,
you'll want to think about what makes the district cohesive, what
materials are used, how buildings are sited, and what kind of
landscaping is around the streets.

Design districts are a little like form-based codes, in the sense that
they describe the progression of buildings from (say) a dense urban
center to sparser areas located away from the center. Consider
whether continuity or diversity is more important. Design review
should be applied to specific areas, and not to a community as a
whole.

Focus groups and visual preference surveys are good tools for
obtaining public input and identifying areas of concern. Study
existing conditions and learn the terminology of design.

Design guidelines (and the design review process) should have a clear
purpose statement.

Incentives are a useful way to get public benefit.

Design standards should be specific. Specificity reduces the
opportunity for abuse and impartiality by the review board. Unclear
or vague standards may be challenged and struck down by courts.
Detailed standards provide sufficient guidance to the review board,
and allow for the possibility of administrative review.

Be cognizant of the language used in standards, particularly when
using "may" or "shall". The former is advisory but the latter
indicates a requirement.

Within a design review district, there should be common relationships
between sites and structures.

Design review is not always appropriate for single-family homes.
Historic districts are an exception to this rule, as their value comes
from the ability to preserve what's in the district.

Reed v Gilbert is a supreme court case involving sign regulations,
where the court ruled that such regulations have to be content
neutral. Architectural expression in building design is a form of
speech, so it's likely that Reed v. Gilbert will have implications for
design review processes.

The permitting process and sequence of meetings is important.
Reviewers should conduct site visits to understand the context of
surrounding land and buildings.

A common objection to design review is the introduction of uncertainty
into the permitting process.

In Falmouth, a group of residents were interested in design, and
started submitting comments to permit hearings. After a while, the
feedback from this group was considered valuable enough to establish
an official design review committee. This is an example of an
informal group evolving into an official body.

Decisions should explain any findings that were made during the design
review process. An explanation of findings (i.e., how the board arrived
at its decisions) will generally make a decision more defensible.
Detailed decisions help to establish precedent, which in turn makes
the process more predictable.

Design review duties can be assigned to planning boards, or to a
separate committee.

Design review should provide suggestions and feedback. The review
committee should not attempt to design the project.

Visual tools are helpful. These could be elaborate computer-generated
graphics, or simple drawings and sketches.

Designers and developers should participate in the creation of design
review standards.

Decisions should be objective and not based on the preferences of
individual committee members. Personal taste can be part of the
process, but shouldn't dominate it.

To summarize what's been discussed: it's important to study the
districts. An interactive public process is an appropriate way to
develop design standards. Architecture is an expressive form, and
standards need some degree of flexibility to achieve a good result.
Test standards with developers, and understand how they'll impact the
development process.

Question: Do you know of communities that have successfully
implemented a design review process?

Any community with a 40R district will have some kind of design
review. The best standards happen when you work with developers and
good designers.

Question: How should design review be integrated with site plan
review?

Consider building facades, rooflines, and how the site meets the
public realm.

Question: I live in a small town (Acton?), and it wouldn't be
practical for us to have a dedicated group for design review.
Sometime, we provide developers with addresses of buildings that we
like and say "try to do something like this". Is that a reasonable
approach?

Yes, providing examples of what you'd like to see is helpful. Some
design review processes require the designer or developer to take
photographs of the surrounding area, and explain how they'll
incorporate those elements into their project.

Comment: There's a balance between subjectivity and objectivity, and
it can be difficult to get that balance right. You don't want
guidelines that are too prescriptive, but you also don't want
guidelines that are too vague. It can be helpful to look at what
other communities have done.

Comment: It's possible to have several sets of design guidelines. For
example, one for single-family homes, one for commercial centers, and
one for downtowns. Downtown guidelines are likely to vary according
to a community's size. For example, a downtown might be a little
village or a tall business center.

Question: How does design review fit in with chapter 43D expedited
permitting?

It fits in rather easily -- just add steps for review of design
elements, building forms, and architecture. The risk is that a hold
up in one step of the permitting process can compress the schedule of
other steps.

Question: Where should a community put its design regulations?

Design regulations can be placed in a Zoning Bylaw, in town bylaws, or
in rules and regulations. Note that the threshold for changing design
regulations varies with these different options.

[[Category:Notes]]

CPTC: Design Review - 11/12/2020 - Revision history

SteveR: initial revision